ABSTRACT
For external actors, adoption of the security-development nexus is expected to achieve a new and comprehensive approach. For example, Schnabel (2011: 44) points to their ‘mutually supportive coexistence’. There have been numerous calls to integrate the two concepts into a comprehensive approach (see for example UN 2004a). However, as noted earlier the nexus has been critiqued for its asymmetry, suggesting that either security or development dominates. The focus of critics on the asymmetry of the security-development nexus suggests that rather than a mutually supportive relationship, the linkage between security and development is uneasy – attempts at integration raise a series of conflicts and contradictions that are not easily resolved. With the expectation that the integration of development with security would ensure the activities of external actors shift away from a traditional security approach, the spectrum between traditional security approaches and emancipation provides a useful analytical tool. Different elements of external engagement can be mapped along this spectrum to identify what inhibits the integration of security and development. The adoption of the security-development nexus does not imply a complete shift towards emancipation, but the integration of security and development would result in some movement away from traditional security. Hypotheses have been developed of four tensions that influence the integration of security and development. In their study on post-conflict reconstruction, Paris and Sisk (2009: 1) define the tensions as ‘competing (and sometimes contradictory) imperatives facing those who attempt to reconstitute effective and legitimate governmental structures in war-torn states’. These competing imperatives become ‘vexing policy dilemmas – that is, multiple imperatives where there are no obvious solutions’ (Paris and Sisk 2007: 1). This research contends that conceptual, causal, institutional and motivational tension influences the integration of security and development. The integration of security and development into a nexus that shifts interventions from a traditional security approach to something more emancipatory relies on specific understandings of security and development. Conceptual tension, which arises from the different understandings of security and development, influences what is integrated with what and thus the type of nexus that emerges.
Similarly, an emancipatory nexus relies on a particular understanding of the relationship between security and development – how they influence each other to achieve a particular outcome. The causal tension, which arises from different perspectives on how security and development are applied and the linkages between them, influences the form of integration between the two concepts. Even when there is a concerted effort to achieve an emancipatory nexus, the actors and institutions involved influence the balance between security and development. This institutional tension influences the extent of the integration between the two concepts. Although the security-development nexus is a new trend to ensure that post-conflict reconstruction becomes more effective and sustainable, this is driven by different motivations, from containing problems to enhancing the security and wellbeing of individuals. This motivational tension reveals the reasons why security and development are being integrated and thus the prioritisation of each concept within the nexus. The analysis of each tension investigates specific elements of external engagement through the two case studies, mapping them along the spectrum from traditional security approaches to emancipation in order to identify what inhibits the integration of security and development.
